Roundtree v. United States

• Decision Date: 15 August 2014
• Docket Number: No. 12–3224.,12–3224.
• Citation: 751 F.3d 923
• Parties: Lorenzo ROUNDTREE, Petitioner–Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent–Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

751 F.3d 923

Lorenzo ROUNDTREE, Petitioner–Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Respondent–Appellee.

No. 12–3224.

United States Court of Appeals,
Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 25, 2013.
Filed: May 30, 2014.
Rehearing Denied Aug. 15, 2014.

[751 F.3d 924]

Patrick William O'Bryan, argued, Des Moines, IA, for Petitioner–Appellant.

Teresa Baumann, Assistant United States Attorney, argued, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Respondent–Appellee.

Before BYE, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

BYE, Circuit Judge.

Lorenzo Dontae Roundtree appeals the denial without a hearing of his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence, in which he alleged various grounds for a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. We granted a certificate of appealability to consider whether the district court was required to conduct an evidentiary hearing in this case and whether Roundtree's trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by not informing Roundtree 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C) mandated Roundtree receive a life sentence if convicted at trial. We remand to the district court for an evidentiary hearing.

I

In 2006, Roundtree was indicted for distribution of heroin resulting in the death of another in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(C). Roundtree had previously been convicted of an earlier felony drug offense. Accordingly, pursuant to § 841(b)(1)(C), he faced a mandatory life sentence if convicted of the charge at trial. Roundtree and the government discussed various plea options. However, Roundtree decided to proceed to trial, after which he was convicted and sentenced to life in prison. His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal on September 17, 2008. United States v. Roundtree, 534 F.3d 876 (8th Cir.2008).

In 2009, Roundtree filed a pro se motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Among other grounds not germane to this appeal, Roundtree alleged his trial counsel, Michael Lindeman, had provided ineffective assistance by failing to advise Roundtree of the mandatory nature of the life sentence pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C).

In 2011, Roundtree moved to amend his petition, to allege, amongst other claims

[751 F.3d 925]

also not germane to this appeal, Lindeman had provided ineffective assistance by incorrectly advising him the maximum possible sentence Roundtree could receive if convicted was 360 months. In support of this motion, Roundtree submitted a sworn affidavit in which he averred he would have been amenable to accepting one of the government's offered plea agreements in order to obtain a lesser sentence had Lindeman advised him of the consequences of the life sentence. Joint Appendix 91.

Lindeman submitted a response entitled “affidavit” regarding Roundtree's allegations. In it, Lindeman averred he had talked extensively with Roundtree about the “ramifications of the consequence of a § 851 notice, ie [sic]: a life sentence.” Id. at 105. Lindeman also averred he had advised Roundtree that “if he were to fight the case and lose, the Court could sentence him to a life sentence.” Id. at 106.

The district court resolved the motions without an evidentiary hearing. It denied the motion to amend in part, concluding Roundtree's attempt to amend his ineffective assistance claim had been untimely. The district court did, however, grant the motion to amend as to another of Roundtree's claims. The district court denied the § 2255 motion, finding Roundtree had received notice of the possibility of a life sentence via the pre-trial detention hearing and the pre-sentence investigation report. The district court also found Lindeman credible, and Roundtree's assertion he would have accepted a plea deal had Lindeman accurately advised him about the mandatory nature of the life sentence “wholly unpersuasive.” Id. at 157.

We granted a certificate of appealability to consider 1) whether the district court was required to hold an evidentiary hearing regarding Roundtree's claim Lindeman provided ineffective assistance by not informing him of the mandatory nature of the life sentence, and 2) whether the district court properly denied relief on the claim.¹

II

We first consider whether the district court was required to conduct an evidentiary hearing. “A Section 2255 movant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing ... unless the motion, files, and record conclusively show he is not entitled to relief.” Koskela v. United States, 235 F.3d 1148, 1149 (8th Cir.2001). “Our review of a district court's ruling in a § 2255 proceeding is de novo both on matters of law and on mixed questions of law and fact.” Deltoro–Aguilera v. United States, 625 F.3d 434, 436 (8th Cir.2010) (citing United States v. Duke, 50 F.3d 571, 576 (8th...